Bold takeaway: interviewing a polarizing national figure on a sports podcast can backfire, revealing the true cost of mixing politics with college football media. But here’s where it gets controversial: the fallout isn’t just about one interview—it signals a shift in how the audience and industry view what belongs on a sports show.
Van Lathan, a rising voice in college football media who co-hosts Ringer Tailgate and often weighs in on politics and culture, believes Josh Pate’s recent sit-down with President Donald Trump showcases a broader reckoning. Lathan argues that Pate failed to anticipate the current political headwinds, and the consequences may ripple through the college football media landscape.
Pate’s appearance with Trump at a Georgia political event prompted a lengthy post-interview explanation, followed by turning off comments and removing the standalone YouTube clip. As Lathan watches Pate respond to the backlash and widespread criticism, he thinks others in the college football media should take note—and perhaps rethink what they chase for guests.
“Josh, and likely the broader college football world, learned some lessons here. We know there’s a conservative streak within the college football audience; we talk about it all the time,” Lathan said on Ringer Tailgate. “But President Trump is a deeply divisive figure—it’s simply a fact.”
Lathan suggests that many commentators previously insisted on apolitical tones to keep left-leaning views from bleeding into the sport. This episode, however, may reveal that even a mainstream conservative segment of the audience could push back when a guest value-aligns with such a divisive figure.
“I think what they discovered is that inviting Donald Trump onto our college football podcast isn’t something a substantial portion of fans view positively,” he explained. “And there will be a cost.”
Lathan also hinted at having spoken with Pate directly about the situation, noting that this moment creates career opportunities for hosts who can drive candid, casual conversations with high-profile figures. Yet he compared Pate’s misstep to regrettable interviews conducted by comedians and other non-political commentators during the 2024 campaign, many of which ended in remorse.
“This wasn’t worth it. The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze here,” Lathan stated. He acknowledges that some might argue interviewing a president carries prestige, but emphasizes the importance of aligning with audience sentiment and current realities. “Maybe there’ll be a time when conversations with the country’s leader aren’t colored by people feeling their lives are on the line, but we’re not there yet.”
During the livestream, Pate explained his aim was to understand Trump’s thinking on potential administration efforts to address turmoil in college athletics. Trump’s responses, however, came across as unfocused and disengaged, leaving the host’s questions unaddressed.
While Lathan concedes that presenting Trump to fans can be reasonable in principle, he asserts that the moment—early 2026—made this an ill-considered choice. “If you’ve got the president on your show while he’s campaigning, that’s one thing,” Lathan said. “But with NIL and other modern topics in play, this was a tough call at the wrong time.” He ultimately calls it an unforced error.
What do you think: should sports media mix political interviews with entertainment-focused shows, or should they stay strictly within sports and culture boundaries? Do you agree with Lathan’s assessment that timing and audience sentiment should guide guest choices, or do you believe bold, boundary-pushing conversations have a place in sports media even amid controversy?
